Hughes v. Hughes
Decision Date | 01 November 1996 |
Citation | 685 So.2d 755 |
Parties | Keith Shawn HUGHES v. Judith Jo Ann HUGHES. 2950732. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Randolph P. Reaves, Montgomery, for Appellant.
Paul Christian Sasser, Jr., Montgomery, for Appellee.
L. CHARLES WRIGHT, Retired Appellate Judge.
The parties were divorced in June 1990. At that time the parties agreed to share legal and physical custody of their three minor children. In October 1990 the father filed a petition to modify custody. Following oral proceedings, the father was awarded legal and physical custody of the children. In 1995 the mother filed a petition to modify custody. Following oral proceedings, the trial court awarded legal custody to both parties and awarded physical custody of the oldest child to the mother. At the time of the hearing, the children were 13, 11, and 9.
The father appeals, contending that the trial court erred in changing the prior custodial arrangement.
The parent seeking modification of a previous order granting custody bears the stringent burden of proving that a change in custody will materially promote the child's best interests. Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984). The moving parent must demonstrate to the trial court that such a change in custody will more than offset the inherently disruptive effect caused by uprooting the child. McLendon.
When the trial court is presented evidence ore tenus, its determination is presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong or unless an abuse of the trial court's discretion is shown. Nicholas v. Nicholas, 464 So.2d 527 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).
In its order the trial court made the following detailed findings of fact:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Waddell v. Waddell
...we assume that the trial court's interview of the parties' sons supports the trial court's judgment. See, e.g., Hughes v. Hughes, 685 So.2d 755, 757 (Ala.Civ. App.1996) ("Although the trial court's in camera interviews with the children were not transcribed and are not contained in the reco......
-
Williams v. Williams
...85 So.3d 435, 441 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) ; see also Waddell v. Waddell, 904 So.2d 1275, 1279–80 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) ; Hughes v. Hughes, 685 So.2d 755, 757 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) ; and Reuter v. Neese, 586 So.2d 232, 235 (Ala.Civ.App.1991). Therefore, we reject the mother's argument that the circuit ......
-
J.S. v. L.M.
...85 So.3d 435, 441 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (citing Waddell v. Waddell, 904 So.2d 1275, 1279–80 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) ; Hughes v. Hughes, 685 So.2d 755, 757 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996) ; and Reuter v. Neese, 586 So.2d 232, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991) ). Accordingly, we cannot say that the mother has de......
-
Williams v. Steven Jeffery Williams. Steven Jeffery Williams
...85 So.3d 435, 441 (Ala.Civ.App.2011); see also Waddell v. Waddell, 904 So.2d 1275, 1279–80 (Ala.Civ.App.2004); Hughes v. Hughes, 685 So.2d 755, 757 (Ala.Civ.App.1996); and Reuter v. Neese, 586 So.2d 232, 235 (Ala.Civ.App.1991). Therefore, we reject the mother's argument that the circuit cou......